|
Critics of video games like Grand Theft Auto claim that the content of these games somehow seduces players into committing the same or similar crimes in the real world. I've always disagreed with this point of view. Here's an illustration of what I'm talking about...
Consider this recent article from the St. Petersburg Times. In it, a 14-year-old kid who was arrested for burglarizing 10 homes and 90 cars in about a week's time said that he watched the "CSI" television show to learn how to do it. CSI's ratings have been 6.8 and higher since it first aired (source: a CSI fan site). That means that at least an approximate 7 million people watch the show each week. In fact, the number is closer to 20 million in the current season. That's a big chunk of the U.S. population. If we accept as a given that television or video games incite people to commit crimes that they wouldn't otherwise have committed (which I do not), crimes like those on CSI should be at epidemic levels. Stories like the one from the St. Petersburg Times should fill our local newspapers and nightly news broadcasts. But they don't. Why? Because the premise is flawed from the start. While it may be true that watching CSI gave this kid ideas about how to commit crimes or showed him some different crimes he could commit, the show certainly didn't make him go commit those crimes any more than it made the other 20 million viewers do so. Still not convinced? Consider this... Let us assume for a moment that the critics are right. People who play video games with questionable content will generally go out and do the kinds of things the games depict. What do the games I've played tell you about me? - Ultima Online: This massively-multiplayer online role-playing game has me sometimes playing the part of a medieval warrior, a blacksmith, a tailor, a magician, and a carpenter. Clearly, I know how to make my own sword, run through the neighborhood slaying evildoers, making my own clothes, and casting spells on my enemies. Never mind the fact that I don't own a sword, don't have a magic wand, and can barely sew on a button.
- Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000: This flight simulation game puts you at the controls of various aircraft and gives you a taste of what it's like to be a real pilot. Naturally, as a result of this, I can take the controls of almost any plane at any time and get it safely to its destination. Yeah, right. That's why they don't have a pilot licensing process or flight training schools.
- Jack Nicklaus Golf: This game lets you assume the role of a professional golfer. Naturally, since I've played it and won, I can clearly hold my own against Tiger Woods. Never mind the fact that I'm lucky to drive a golf ball 20 feet, don't own a set of clubs, and have no idea which club in the bag is the 5 iron or which is the 3 wood (or if those club names are even correct).
- Sid Meier's Pirates: In this game, you're a pirate on the high seas in the days before the America won its independence from England. You command a ship full of pirates, plunder unsuspecting ships, interfere in local politics, dance with the governors' daughters, dig up buried treasure, and try to retire wealthy. Strange that in real life I don't own own a boat, have no idea how to sail one, and can't dance (and have no desire to learn). Naturally I am trying to retire wealthy (though this has been a goal long before I ran into this game), and since I do own and occasionally use a metal detector I've tried to dig up buried treasure. This hardly qualifies me as a pirate, however.
I have friends who play games like these (and many others). None of them, as far as I can tell, has ever gone out and replicated anything he's seen in the games... unless it was something he had an interest in before the game came out. So if the critics of violent gaming are right, I should be a sword-wielding, homicidal maniac. But I'm not. That's because these people are, quite simply, wrong. While a violent game MIGHT (and I emphasize "might") cause someone who's borderline psychotic to go out and reproduce its violent content, that same someone would probably be influenced by a violent story on the evening news, an episode of CSI, or the cartoon antics of Tom and Jerry. Deprived of any media (games, TV, newspapers, etc.) this same person would find "inspiration" in a fight between two neighborhood dogs or an automobile accident on their street. What the critics seem to miss is a human quality known as "personal responsibility and accountability". Most human beings have this quality to a greater or lesser degree. We know that if we harm another person or commit a crime, we are going to be held accountable for the act and responsible for the consequences. (That's one of those little things my parents taught me, by punishing me when I behaved badly as a child.) So while we might play a game that involves shooting someone or lopping their head off with a sword, we have the presence of mind to know that this is only a fantasy, and that doing the real thing would put us behind bars for a very, very long time. The only people who play video games and go outside the house and replicate their violent activities are people who don't have that sense of accountability and responsibility. These are people who will very likely engage in criminal acts regardless of what stimulation they do or don't get from the media. There are efforts underway in some parts of the country to hold game manufacturers liable for the actions of players of their games. That's like holding the builder of your home responsible if you use it to deal drugs or run a brothel. It's like holding a candy manufacturer responsible if you get fat gorging on chocolate. It's just plain ridiculous. Perhaps the best explanation I've ever read is this one from the LA Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-johnson27jul27,0,1432940.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
Related Blogs:
Related Links:
|
